Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55111 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 100.35–T05–068 

to read as follows: 

§ 100.35–T05–068 John H. Kerr Reservoir, 

Clarksville, Virginia. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulated area 

is established for the waters of the John 

H. Kerr Reservoir, adjacent to the State 

Route 15 Highway Bridge and 

Occoneechee State Park, Clarksville, 

Virginia, from shoreline to shoreline, 

bounded on the south by a line running 

northeasterly from a point along the 

shoreline at latitude 36°37′14′′ N, 

longitude 078°32′46.5′′ W, thence to 

latitude 36°37′39.2′′ N, longitude 

078°32′08.8′′ W, and bounded on the 

north by the State Route 15 Highway 

Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum 

NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the Coast 

Guard who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Hampton Roads. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads 

with a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer on board and displaying a Coast 

Guard ensign. 

(3) Participant includes all vessels 

participating in the Clarksville 

Hydroplane Challenge under the 

auspices of the Marine Event Permit 

issued to the event sponsor and 

approved by Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector Hampton Roads. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) 

Except for event participants and 

persons or vessels authorized by the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area must: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any Official Patrol 

and then proceed only as directed. 

(ii) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Official Patrol. 

(iii) When authorized to transit the 

regulated area, all vessels shall proceed 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course that minimizes 

wake near the race course. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. on 

October 7 to 6:30 p.m. on October 8, 

2006. 

Dated: September 8, 2006. 

Larry L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 06–7792 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AC99 

Curecanti National Recreation Area, 

Personal Watercraft Use 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule designates 

areas where personal watercraft (PWC) 

may be used in Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Colorado. This final 

rule implements the provisions of the 

National Park Service (NPS) general 

regulations authorizing park areas to 

allow the use of PWC by promulgating 

a special regulation. Individual parks 

must determine whether PWC use is 

appropriate for a specific park area 

based on an evaluation of that area’s 

enabling legislation, resources and 

values, other visitor uses, and overall 

management objectives. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective September 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Mail inquiries to 

Superintendent, Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, 102 Elk Creek, 

Gunnison, CO 81230 or e -mail NPS at 

CURE_Superintendent@nps.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Case, Regulations Program Manager, 

National Park Service, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Room 7241, Washington, DC 

20240. Phone: (202) 208–4206. E-mail: 

jerry_case@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Personal Watercraft Regulation 

On March 21, 2000, the National Park 

Service published a regulation (36 CFR 

3.24) on the management of personal 

watercraft (PWC) use within all units of 

the national park system (65 FR 15077). 

The regulation prohibits PWC use in all 

national park units unless the NPS 

determines that this type of water-based 

recreational activity is appropriate for 

the specific park unit based on the 

legislation establishing that park, the 

park’s resources and values, other 

visitor uses of the area, and overall 

management objectives. The regulation 

prohibited PWC use in all park units 

effective April 20, 2000, except 21 

preserves, lakeshores, seashores, and 

recreation areas. The regulation 

established a 2-year grace period 

following the final rule publication to 

provide these 21 park units time to 

consider whether PWC use should be 

allowed. On November 7, 2002 PWC use 

was discontinued at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. 

Description of Curecanti National 

Recreation Area 

Curecanti National Recreation Area 

(Curecanti) was established in 1965 to 

provide for conservation of scenic, 

natural, historic, archeological, and 

wildlife values. The goal of the National 

Recreation Area is to provide for public 

use and enjoyment while ensuring 

visitor safety, resource preservation, and 

conservation. Curecanti is located along 

U.S. Highway 50 (U.S. 50) west of 

Gunnison, Colorado. 

Three reservoirs, named for 

corresponding dams on the Gunnison 

River, form the heart of Curecanti. The 

three reservoirs are Blue Mesa 

Reservoir, Morrow Point Reservoir, and 

Crystal Reservoir. Blue Mesa Reservoir 

is Colorado’s largest body of water and 

is home to the biggest Kokanee Salmon 

fishery in the United States. Morrow 

Point Reservoir is the beginning of the 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Crystal 

Reservoir is the site of the Gunnison 

Diversion Tunnel, a National Historic 

Civil Engineering Landmark. In addition 

to the three reservoirs, recently 

discovered dinosaur fossils, a 5,000 acre 

archeological district, a narrow gauge 

train, and traces of 6,000 year old 

dwellings further enhance the 

significance of Curecanti. 

Purpose of Curecanti National 

Recreation Area 

The purpose and significance 

statements listed below are from 

Curecanti’s Strategic Plan and General 

Management Plan. Curecanti National 

Recreation Area was established for the 

following purposes: 

1. Conserve the scenery, natural, 

historic, and archeological resources, 

and wildlife of Curecanti. 

2. Provide for public use and 

enjoyment in such a way as to ensure 

visitor safety and resource preservation 

or conservation by establishing and 

maintaining facilities and providing 

protection and interpretive services. 

3. Manage the lands, waters, and 

activities of Curecanti in such a way 

that it does not interfere with the 

purposes of the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act and other Bureau of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55112 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Reclamation agreements affecting the 

operation of the Aspinall Unit. 

4. Mitigate the loss of fish and 

wildlife resources as a result of the 

Colorado River Storage Project. 

Significance of Curecanti National 

Recreation Area 

The following statements summarize 

the significance of Curecanti: 

1. Blue Mesa Reservoir is one of the 

largest high-altitude bodies of water in 

the United States. It provides an 

exciting diversity of water recreation 

opportunities for windsurfers, sail 

boaters, and water skiers. 

2. The scenic values of the canyon, 

the needles, the pinnacles, and the 

reservoirs provide dramatic contrast, 

which causes visitors to slow down, 

pause, and reflect on the diversity of the 

landscape and its spaciousness. 

3. Curecanti provides one of the best 

cold-water fishing opportunities in the 

nation. This is due primarily to the 

Kokanee salmon run occurring in Blue 

Mesa. The Morrow Point and Crystal 

Reservoirs’ trout fisheries routinely 

attract fishing enthusiasts from 

throughout the nation because of the 

high-quality trout fishing and 

uniqueness of the canyon environment. 

4. The prehistoric and historic stories 

of human culture in the Curecanti area 

are recorded in the traces and tracks left 

by Native Americans, miners, 

railroaders, and ranchers. The cultural 

history of this area documents not only 

the human struggles to survive but also 

how changing human value systems; 

economic, social, and technological 

changes; and the importance of water 

have shaped the use and character of the 

land and its people. Cultural history 

contains archeological examples of 

some of the oldest villages found in 

North America, predating the building 

of the pyramids. 

5. The narrow-gauge railroad exhibit 

in Cimarron graphically portrays the 

story of technology’s effects of shaping 

people and using land; the agony and 

difficulties of building track in narrow 

canyons in the winter where the sun 

seldom shined; and of taking the hard 

way instead of the easy trail. Examples 

of a locomotive, tender, and caboose 

used on the railroad are on exhibit at 

Cimarron. 

The park’s mission statement is as 

follows: ‘‘Curecanti National 

Recreational Area will preserve, protect, 

and interpret the tremendous collection 

of nationally significant, diverse natural 

and cultural resources balanced with 

the provision of outstanding 

recreational opportunities.’’

Authority and Jurisdiction 

Under the National Park Service’s 

Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act) (16 

U.S.C. 1 et seq.) Congress granted the 

NPS broad authority to regulate the use 

of the Federal areas known as national 

parks. In addition, the Organic Act (16 

U.S.C. 3) authorizes the NPS, through 

the Secretary of the Interior, to ‘‘make 

and publish such rules and regulations 

as he may deem necessary or proper for 

the use and management of the parks 

** *’’

16 U.S.C. 1a–1 states, ‘‘The 

authorization of activities shall be 

conducted in light of the high public 

value and integrity of the National Park 

System and shall not be exercised in 

derogation of the values and purposes 

for which these various areas have been 

established * * *’’

As with the United States Coast 

Guard, NPS’s regulatory authority over 

waters subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States, including navigable 

waters and areas within their ordinary 

reach, derives from the U.S. 

Constitution. In regard to the NPS, 

based upon the Property and Commerce 

Clauses, Congress in 1976 directed the 

NPS to ‘‘promulgate and enforce 

regulations concerning boating and 

other activities on or relating to waters 

within areas of the National Park 

System, including waters subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States * * *’’

(16 U.S.C. 1a–2(h)). In 1996 the NPS 

published a final rule (61 FR 35136, July 

5, 1996) amending 36 CFR 1.2(a)(3) to 

clarify its authority to regulate activities 

within the National Park System 

boundaries occurring on waters subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

PWC Use at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area 

Curecanti National Recreation Area 

includes Blue Mesa Reservoir, which 

was created with the completion of the 

Blue Mesa Dam. Blue Mesa Reservoir is 

comprised of three basins: Sapinero, 

Cebolla, and Iola as well as various 

arms. The basins are often referred to as 

the main body of the reservoir to 

distinguish activities there from 

activities in the arms. 

Approximately 1 million visitors use 

Curecanti’s facilities annually. This 

figure includes visitors who pursue 

water-based recreation activities on the 

reservoir and those who engage in other 

recreation opportunities. Motorboats 

and other watercraft have been used in 

Curecanti since 1975. Personal 

watercraft have emerged at Curecanti 

only since their introduction in the 

1980s, and particularly since the 

summer of 1995 when personal 

watercraft were available for rent from 

a park concessioner. Park staff believes 

PWC use has increased since 1995, and 

a registration survey mailed to vessel 

users requesting an annual permit 

revealed that in 2000, 0.69% of over 400 

respondents were PWC users. The 

annual use is estimated to have been 

792 PWC in 2002, and is predicted to 

increase at approximately 2% annually 

to 965 PWC in 2012. Based on ranger 

observation, most PWC users are from 

Colorado, they limit their PWC use to 

approximately 2 hours, and they wear a 

wetsuit because of cold-water 

temperatures and high afternoon winds. 

In addition, PWC use has conflicted 

with both bank and boat fishermen from 

Dry Creek to Bay of Chickens. Before the 

prohibition on PWC use, the General 

Management Plan and Superintendent’s 

Compendium allowed personal 

watercraft and other watercraft to 

operate only on the main body of the 

Blue Mesa Reservoir and lake arms with 

speed and zone restrictions. PWC use 

was prohibited in all other areas of the 

park through restrictions on horsepower 

and restrictions on motorized vessels. 

Personal watercraft generally did not 

operate at the extreme ends of lake arms 

because the arms are narrow in width. 

On the main body of the reservoir, 

personal watercraft were widely 

distributed. In addition to the main 

body, high-use areas include the Iola 

Basin and Colorado State Highway 149 

(Highway 149) areas. Other locations 

with limited use include Stevens Creek, 

Cebolla Basin, Soap Creek Arm, Bay of 

Chickens, and the main marina at Elk 

Creek. 

This rulemaking is focusing 

exclusively on PWC use at the park. The 

park also intends to develop a water/ 

vessel management plan for the use of 

other vessels. 

NPRM and Environmental Assessment 

On March 17, 2006, the National Park 

Service published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) for the operation of 

PWC at Curecanti (71 FR 13792). The 

proposed rule for PWC use was based 

on alternative A (one of three 

alternatives considered) in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

prepared by NPS for Curecanti. The EA 

was open for public review and 

comment from June 11, 2003 until July 

13, 2003. The EA is available at 

http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/ 

pwc_use.htm. 

The purpose of the environmental 

assessment was to evaluate a range of 

alternatives and strategies for the 

management of PWC use at Curecanti to 

ensure the protection of park resources 

and values while offering recreational 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55113 

opportunities as provided for in the 

National Recreation Area’s enabling 

legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. 

The assessment assumed alternatives 

would be implemented beginning in 

2002 and considered a 10-year period, 

from 2002 to 2012. The assessment also 

compared each alternative to PWC use 

before November 7, 2002, when the 

prohibition took effect. 

The environmental assessment 

evaluated three alternatives addressing 

the use of personal watercraft at 

Curecanti: 

Alternative A—By using a special 

regulation, the park would reinstate 

PWC use as previously managed prior to 

November 7, 2002, and would add one 

buffer zone as described below. Under 

this alternative, PWC use would occur 

in areas of Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

portions of the lake arms. Areas 

appropriate for PWC use would include 

Sapinero, Cebolla, and Iola Basins; Bay 

of Chickens; Dry Creek; Elk Creek; the 

Highway 149 area; and Lake Fork, Soap 

Creek, and West Elk arms. Operation of 

all motorized watercraft would continue 

to be prohibited in areas east of Beaver 

Creek within the Gunnison River 

Canyon and in the area downstream 

from the East Portal diversion dam. All 

designated launch areas on Blue Mesa 

Reservoir (developed and unimproved) 

would remain open to PWC use. 

Personal watercraft would be allowed to 

land on any shoreline at Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. 

The following areas would remain 

closed to all boating, including personal 

watercraft, and shoreline entry: Blue 

Mesa Dam downstream for 225 yards, 

Morrow Point Dam downstream for 130 

yards, Crystal Dam downstream for 700 

yards, and East Portal diversion dam 

upstream for 60 yards. In addition, the 

following areas would be zoned as flat 

wake speed areas: The area upstream 

from Lake City Bridge to Beaver Creek; 

the area within the arms of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir that is less than 1,000 feet 

from shore to shore at full pool level. 

These areas will be marked by 

designated buoys. These arms include 

Soap Creek Arm, West Elk Arm, Lake 

Fork Arm, and Cebolla Arm; narrow 

waterways off the Bay of Chickens and 

Dry Creek; Elk Creek and Lake Fork 

Marinas; and Iola and Stevens Creek 

boat launch areas. 

In addition to the areas outlined 

above, a 100-foot buffer zone from the 

shoreline would be established at the 

Stevens Creek campground, as marked 

by buoys. The buffer area would be 

zoned as a flat wake speed area. A buffer 

zone will provide for the protection of 

an active Gunnison sage grouse lek and 

nesting area, and would mitigate 

potential noise impacts from PWC use 

and associated shoreline use during the 

lek and nesting season (mid-March–

July). 

Alternative B—Same as alternative A, 

with the following additional 

restrictions. This alternative would 

establish a 100-foot buffer zone along 

the south shore of Blue Mesa Reservoir 

from 0.5 mile west of Iola to 0.5 mile 

east of Middle Bridge for soundscape, 

cultural resource, and wildlife 

protection as well as to prevent erosion. 

Alternative B includes further speed 

restrictions. Under this alternative, the 

additional speed restrictions would 

apply to PWC use in each of the lake 

arms on Blue Mesa Reservoir from the 

mouth of each lake arm upriver to the 

flat wake areas. In these restricted areas 

PWC use would need to operate at flat 

wake speeds when within 150 feet of 

another boat, a person in or floating on 

the water, shore fisherman, a launching 

ramp, a dock, or a designated swimming 

area. 

No-Action Alternative—The park 

would continue the PWC prohibition. 

PWC use would not be reinstated and 

the National Park Service would not 

take action to draft a special regulation 

to reinstate PWC use. 

Alternative A is the park’s preferred 

alternative because it best fulfills the 

park responsibilities as trustee of the 

sensitive habitat; ensures safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; and 

attains a wider range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk of health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 

This final rule contains regulations to 

implement alternative A at Curecanti. 

Summary of Comments 

A proposed rule on PWC use in the 

Curecanti National Recreation Area was 

published in the Federal Register for 

public comment on March 17, 2006, 

with the comment period lasting until 

May 16, 2006 (71 FR 13792). The 

National Park Service (NPS) received 

2,325 timely written comments 

regarding the EA and proposed 

regulation. Of the comments, 1,935 were 

form letters in 10 different formats, 345 

were on a petition, and 45 were separate 

letters. Of the 45 separate letters, 37 

were from individuals, 7 from 

organizations, and 1 from a public 

agency. Within the following 

discussion, the term ‘‘commenter’’ refers 

to an individual, organization, or public 

agency that responded. The term 

‘‘comments’’ refers to statements made 

by a commenter. 

General Comments 

1. Several commenters, including 

Bluewater Network and the American 

Canoe Association, stated that the EA 

failed to use the best data available and 

picked alternative A without adequate 

scientific justification. 

NPS Response: The EA analyzed 

every applicable impact topic with the 

best available data, as required by 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR 1502.22). Where 

data was lacking, best professional 

judgment prevailed using assumptions 

and extrapolations from scientific 

literature, other park units where 

personal watercraft are used, and 

personal observations of park staff. 

2. Several commenters stated that 

allowing PWC use with additional 

restrictions violates the park’s enabling 

legislation and NPS mandate to protect 

resources from harm. 

NPS Response: The NPS analysis of 

PWC use specifically considered the 

requirements of Curecanti National 

Recreation Area’s enabling legislation. 

The authorizing legislation for Curecanti 

was carefully considered when 

developing alternatives for the EA. The 

objective of the EA, as described in the 

‘‘Purpose and Need’’ Chapter of the EA, 

was derived from the enabling 

legislation for Curecanti. As a result, the 

alternatives presented in the EA were 

developed to protect resources and 

values while providing recreational 

opportunities at Curecanti. As required 

by NPS policies, the impacts associated 

with PWC and other recreational uses 

are evaluated under each alternative to 

determine the potential for impairment 

to park resources. NPS has concluded 

that alternative A would not result in 

impairment of park resources and 

values for which the Curecanti was 

established. The recreation area’s 

enabling legislation also states that the 

‘‘Secretary shall administer Curecanti 

National Recreation Area for general 

purposes of public outdoor recreation.’’

The goal of the national recreation area 

is to provide each visitor with an 

educational, enjoyable, safe and 

memorable experience. 

3. One commenter suggested 

clarifying the language in the proposed 

rule about landing restrictions near the 

dam. 

NPS Response: We agree and text has 

been added to the rule to address the 

buoyed barricaded sections in the 

vicinity of the dams, where boats are not 

allowed. 

4. One commenter stated the analysis 

did not adequately consult with and 

seek the expertise of various agencies, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55114 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

which appears to violate the NPS PWC 

regulations. 

NPS Response: The final PWC 

regulation published by the NPS in 

March 2000 indicates that we intend to 

seek the expertise of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) and other 

relevant agencies and literature when 

deciding whether to allow continued 

PWC use in units of the National Park 

System. The EA references EPA and 

OSHA regulations and studies 

throughout the document. 

5. Several commenters stated that the 

decision violates the Organic Act and 

will result in the impairment of 

resources. 

NPS Response: The ‘‘Summary of 

Laws and Policies’’ section in the 

‘‘Environmental Consequences’’ chapter 

of the EA summarizes the three 

overarching laws that guide the NPS in 

making decisions concerning protection 

of park resources. These laws, as well as 

others, are also reflected in the NPS 

Management Policies. An explanation of 

how the NPS applied these laws and 

policies to analyze the effects of 

personal watercraft on Curecanti 

resources and values can be found 

under ‘‘Impairment Analysis’’ in the 

‘‘Methodology’’ section of the EA. 

Under the EA’s methodology, an 

impairment to a particular park resource 

or park value is indicated when the 

impact reaches the magnitude of 

‘‘major,’’ as defined by its context, 

duration, and intensity and must also 

affect the ability of the National Park 

Service to meet its mandates as 

established by Congress in the park’s 

enabling legislation. For each impact 

topic, the EA establishes thresholds or 

indicators of magnitude of impact. For 

each impact topic, when the intensity 

approached ‘‘major,’’ the park would 

consider mitigation measures to reduce 

the potential for ‘‘major’’ impacts, thus 

reducing the potential for impairment. 

The NPS has determined that the 

preferred alternative would not result in 

impairment of park resources or values. 

6. One commenter is concerned about 

PWC use conflicting with swimmers 

and anglers at Curecanti. 

NPS Response: Additional 

management restrictions have been put 

into effect in the regulation to prevent 

conflicts with swimmers, shore anglers 

and watercraft. The popular day use 

areas, such as Dry Creek and Bay of 

Chickens, have flat wake buoys in place 

to keep vessels at flat wake speeds in 

congested areas until they are out into 

open water. The preferred alternative 

would keep this restriction in place. 

7. One commenter is concerned that 

the assumption of PWC growth at 

Curecanti may be underanalyzed, and 

instead of using a 2 percent growth rate 

in the analysis, a 5 percent growth rate 

would more accurately reflect the 

conditions in Colorado. 

NPS Response: The estimated annual 

increase in PWC use of 2% appears 

justified in light of several lines of 

evidence. While the overall increase in 

PWC use from 1994 to 2002 is over 

300%, the majority of that increase 

occurred through 1997. Since then, the 

increases decreased every year to the 

point where there was a net decrease of 

1% between 2001 and 2002. This 

decrease in PWC use in Colorado 

parallels the decrease in nationwide 

PWC use and the decrease in visitors to 

the park between 1999 and 2001. The 

projected annual growth in population 

in the region and the state is 1.7 to 

2.0%. For this combination of reasons, 

the projected increase in PWC use at the 

park is reasonable. 

Comments Regarding Water Quality 

8. Several commenters stated that 

research indicated that direct-injection 

2-stroke engines are dirtier than 4-stroke 

engines. 

NPS Response: Total hydrocarbons 

(THC) emissions factors for 2-stroke 

carbureted PWC engines are 

approximately 13 times greater than for 

4-stroke PWC engines. This is a major 

factor in the EPA rule requiring the 

phase out of carbureted 2-stroke 

engines. However, the two-stroke direct 

injection engines are almost as clean 

burning as the four-stroke. 

9. One commenter stated that the 

analysis disregarded or overlooked 

relevant research regarding impacts to 

water quality from PWC use as well as 

the impact to downstream resources and 

long-term site specific water quality 

data on PWC pollutants. 

NPS Response: The EA states that in 

2002 impacts to water quality from PWC 

on a high-use day would be negligible 

for all chemicals evaluated based on 

ecological and human health 

benchmarks and for benzo(a)pyrene 

based on human health benchmarks. 

10. One commenter stated that the 

assumption that there is enough water 

in the lake to dilute PWC pollutants to 

levels that do not violate state and 

Federal standards is incorrect, and that 

the concentration of PWC operation in 

certain areas of the lake means that 

there is less water available for mixing. 

NPS Response: As described on pages 

51 and 52 of the EA, the effective 

mixing zone volume of 52,433 acre-feet 

(which is compared to the threshold 

volumes) is based on the difference 

between the volume at minimum pool 

(192,270 acre-feet) and the volume at 

the thermocline (139,837 acre-feet). This 

is a conservative estimate of the mixing 

zone for the reservoir because the lowest 

recorded elevation of the reservoir is 

7,428 feet while the minimum pool 

elevation is 7,393 feet, a difference of 35 

feet. At the time of preparation of the 

EA (January 2003), the elevation was 

7,445 feet, 52 feet above minimum pool. 

While PWC use may be concentrated in, 

but not restricted to, areas between Elk 

Creek and the Lake City Bridge and in 

the Soap Creek Arm, water in these 

areas will mix with waters outside of 

the areas. The maximum calculated 

threshold volume needed to dilute 

emissions from personal watercraft 

under any alternative is 4,534 acre-feet 

for benzene in 2002 (see Table 18 of 

EA). Impacts to water quality are termed 

negligible in view of the fact that the 

threshold volume is less than the 

available mixing zone volume and that 

the half-life of benzene is less than 5 

hours. This assessment of adverse 

impacts due to PWC use on a peak-use 

day (16 personal watercraft) is 

conservative even if PWC use is 

concentrated in a few areas of the 

reservoir. 

11. One commenter stated that the 

analysis represents an outdated look at 

potential emissions from an overstated 

PWC population of conventional 2- 

stroke engines, and underestimated the 

accelerating changeover to 4-stroke and 

new 2-stroke engines. The EA also states 

that benzo(a)pyrene concentrations in 

gasoline range from 0.19 to 2.8 mg/kg, 

but the EA chooses the highest figure for 

the analysis. The net effect is that the 

analysis overestimates potential PWC 

hydrocarbon emissions, including 

benzene and polycystic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), to the water in 

Blue Mesa Reservoir. 

NPS Response: Assumptions 

regarding PWC use (16 per day in 2002 

and 20 per day in 2012) were based on 

actual count data from the month of July 

2002 and on park staff observations. 

Because of holiday timing in 2001 and 

poor weather, the observation of 9 

personal watercraft on a peak-use day 

was thought to be more typical of a nonpeak use summer day, not a peak-use 

day. Therefore, peak-use PWC numbers 

in 2002 were estimated to be 16 vessels. 

PWC use at other times of the year 

ranged from 0 to 4 PWC per day. Data 

for the years 2001 and 2002 were the 

only data available for Curecanti (page 

75 of EA). Because data from other years 

were not available, trends in PWC use 

at Curecanti could not be determined for 

use in the EA. The July 2002 estimate 

can be considered a ‘‘worst case’’


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55115 

estimate, but it is not ‘‘unrealistic’’ since 

it is based on actual Curecanti data and 

park staff observations. Despite these 

conservative estimates, impacts to water 

quality from personal watercraft are 

judged to be negligible for all 

alternatives evaluated. If the 

assumptions used were less than 

conservative, the conclusions could not 

be considered protective of the 

environment, while still being within 

the range of expected use. 

12. One commenter stated that even 

minor oil spills can cause increased 

levels of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and PAHs in the water, which 

will cause damage to aquatic wildlife. 

NPS Response: Impacts to wildlife 

from PWC under alternative A range 

from negligible to minor adverse. 

Impacts to water quality from the 

discharge of fuel constituents under 

alternative A range from negligible to 

minor adverse. 

13. One commenter stated that levels 

of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) 

levels must be tested and disclosed to 

the public, yet the EA does not disclose 

the levels of toxins (BTEX, PAHs and 

MTBE) from samples taken in the 

summer of 2000. 

NPS Response: MTBE was not 

included in the analysis of impacts to 

water quality because MTBE is banned 

in Colorado and is unlikely to be 

brought into the park in large quantities. 

Although potential concentrations of 

gasoline-related constituents in the 

water were not included in the 

proposed rule, they were used in the 

calculations of water volumes needed to 

dilute constituents to levels below the 

ecotoxicological and human health 

benchmarks in the Environmental 

Consequences section of the EA. 

Colorado is not the only state to ban 

MTBE. According to data provided by 

the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 

servicerpt/mtbeban/table1.htm), which 

was last updated March 27, 2003, 17 

states have banned or restricted the 

concentration of MTBE in gasoline. 

Comments Regarding Air Quality 

14. One commenter stated that the 

analysis failed to mention the impact of 

PWC permeation losses on local air 

quality. 

NPS Response: Permeation losses of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from personal watercraft were not 

included in the calculation of air quality 

impacts primarily because these losses 

are insignificant relative to emissions 

from other operating watercraft. Also, 

permeation losses were not included 

because of numerous related unknown 

contributing factors such as the number 

of personal watercraft refueling at the 

reservoir and the location of refueling 

(inside or outside of the airshed). Using 

the permeation loss numbers in the 

comment (estimated to be half the total 

of 7 grams of losses per 24 hours from 

the fuel system), the permeation losses 

per hour from fuel systems are orders of 

magnitude less than emissions from 

operating personal watercraft. 

Therefore, we believe the inclusion of 

permeation losses would not have a 

significant effect on the results of the air 

quality impact analyses. 

15. One commenter expressed 

concern that PWC emissions were 

declining faster than forecasted by the 

EPA. As the Sierra Report documents, in 

2002, hydrocarbons (HC) + nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emissions from the 

existing fleet of PWC were already 23% 

lower than they were before the EPA 

regulations became effective, and will 

achieve reductions greater than 80% by 

2012. 

NPS Response: The EPA data 

incorporated into the 1996 Spark 

Ignition Marine Engine rule were used 

as the basis for the assessment of air 

quality, and not the Sierra Research 

data. It is agreed that these data show a 

greater rate of emissions reductions than 

the assumptions in the 1996 Rule and in 

the EPA NONROAD Model, which was 

used to estimate emissions. However, 

the level of detail included in the Sierra 

Research report has not been carried 

into the EA for reasons of consistency 

and conformance with the model 

predictions. Most states use the EPA 

NONROAD Model for estimating 

emissions from a broad array of mobile 

sources. To provide consistency with 

state programs and with the methods of 

analysis used for other similar NPS 

assessments, the NPS has elected not to 

base its analysis on focused research 

such as the Sierra Report for assessing 

PWC impacts. 

It is agreed that the relative quantity 

of HC + NOX are a very small proportion 

of the county based emissions and that 

this proportion will continue to be 

reduced over time. The EA takes this 

into consideration in the analysis. 

For consistency and conformity in 

approach, the NPS has elected to rely on 

the assumptions in the 1996 Spark 

Ignition Engine Rule which are 

consistent with the widely used 

NONROAD emissions estimation model. 

The outcome is that estimated emissions 

from combusted fuel may be in the 

conservative range, if compared to 

actual emissions. 

Comments Regarding Soundscapes 

16. One commenter stated that 

continued PWC use at Curecanti will 

not result in sound emissions that 

exceed the applicable Federal or State 

noise abatement standards, and 

technological innovations by the PWC 

companies will continue to result in 

substantial sound reductions. 

NPS Response: The NPS concurs that 

on-going and future improvements in 

engine technology and design would 

likely further reduce the noise emitted 

from PWC. However, given the ambient 

noise levels in the recreation area, it is 

unlikely that the improved technology 

could reduce all cumulative impacts of 

motorized vessels beyond minor to 

moderate through out the recreation 

area. 

17. One commenter stated that the 

NPS places too much hope in new 

technologies significantly reducing PWC 

noise since there is little possibility that 

the existing fleet of more than 1.1 

million machines (most of which are 

powered by conventional two-stroke 

engines) will be retooled to reduce 

noise. Furthermore, many PWC owners 

modify the exhaust system to increase 

horsepower and thrust, which can 

render useless the attempts by 

manufacturers to reduce engine noise 

levels. 

NPS Response: The analysis of the 

preferred alternative states that noise 

from PWC would continue to have 

minor to moderate, temporary adverse 

impacts, and that impact levels would 

be related to number of PWC and 

sensitivity of other visitors. This 

recognizes that noise will occur and will 

bother some visitors, but site-specific 

modeling was not needed to make this 

assessment. The availability of noise 

reduction technologies is also growing, 

and we are not aware of any scientific 

studies that show these technologies do 

not reduce engine noise levels. Also, the 

analysis did not rely heavily on any 

noise reduction technology. It 

recognizes that the noise from the 

operation of PWC will always vary, 

depending on the speed, manner of use, 

and wave action present. 

Although PWC use does occur 

throughout the lake, it is concentrated 

more in certain areas, and this is noted 

in the soundscapes impact analysis that 

follows the introductory statements and 

assumptions listed on page 104 of the 

EA. The analysis did not assume even 

distribution of PWC and predicted 

moderate impacts from concentrated 

PWC use in one area. 

Comments Regarding Wildlife and 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

18. One commenter stated that the 

analysis lacked site-specific data for 

impacts to wildlife, fish, and threatened 

and endangered species at Curecanti. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55116 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

NPS Response: The park did not 

conduct site-specific studies regarding 

potential effects of PWC use on wildlife 

species at Curecanti. Analysis of 

potential impacts of PWC use on 

wildlife at the national recreation area 

was based on best available data, input 

from park staff, and the results of 

analysis using that data. 

19. One commenter stated that PWC 

use and human activities associated 

with their use may not be any more 

disturbing to wildlife species than any 

other type of motorized or nonmotorized watercraft. The commenter 

cites research by Dr. Rodgers, of the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, whose studies have shown 

that PWC are no more likely to disturb 

wildlife than any other form of human 

interaction. PWC posed less of a 

disturbance than other vessel types. Dr. 

Rodgers’ research clearly shows that 

there is no reason to differentiate PWC 

from motorized boating based on claims 

on wildlife disturbance. 

NPS Response: Based on the 

documents provided as part of this 

comment, it appears that PWC are no 

more apt to disturb wildlife than are 

small outboard motorboats; however, 

disturbance from both PWC and 

outboard motorboats does occur. In 

addition to this conclusion, Dr. Rogers 

recommends that buffer zones be 

established, creating minimum 

distances between boats (personal 

watercraft and outboard motorboats) 

and nesting and foraging waterbirds. 

Under the final rule, there will be a 100- 

foot buffer around Steven’s Creek 

campground for Gunnison sage grouse 

protection. This buffer area will be 

zoned as flat wake speed for all 

motorized watercraft. The arms of the 

lake would remain flat wake speed areas 

to minimize disturbances to wildlife 

and visitors. Impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat under all the 

alternatives were judged to be minor to 

moderate from all visitor activities. 

20. One commenter is concerned that 

the EA does not consider a large enough 

area inland in its analysis for PWC noise 

and its impact upon wildlife. The EA 

states that PWC may disturb wildlife 

along the shore, extending inland 

approximately 100 feet, while the 

distance used for analyzing impacts 

upon humans is 3⁄4 of a mile. 

NPS Response: The evaluation area 

used in the EA for noise impacts to 

wildlife is 200 feet, not 100 feet from the 

shoreline. Even within this relative 

short distance from personal watercraft, 

noise impacts to wildlife are expected to 

be short-term and either minor or 

negligible. Noise levels from PWC use 

would be decreased further at greater 

distances. However, additional 

potentially affected wildlife may be 

present within 3/4 mile of the shoreline. 

Therefore impact levels may increase 

slightly from those described for the 

various alternatives and wildlife 

categories. In the errata to the EA, 

impacts described as negligible were 

changed to minor, impacts described as 

minor were changed to moderate, and 

ranges of impacts from negligible to 

minor were changed to minor to 

moderate. 

21. Several commenters are concerned 

about PWC impacting the Gunnison 

sage grouse and its habitat and lek 

located near Stevens Creek campground. 

NPS Response: Under the final rule, a 

100-foot buffer area, as marked by 

buoys, will be implemented around 

Steven’s Creek campground for 

protection of the Gunnison sage grouse 

lek. This buffer area will be zoned as flat 

wake speed for all motorized vessels. 

22. One comment stated that the 

additional buffer zones proposed for 

Gunnison sage grouse protection are not 

necessary because the NPS already has 

procedures in place that protect the 

grouse lek located near Stevens Creek 

campground. 

NPS Response: The flat wake zone 

near Stevens Creek campground will 

apply to all motorized boats, and would 

afford additional protection to the 

Gunnison sage grouse during the lek 

season, which extends from March 

through mid-May, when PWC and other 

boats may be in use on the reservoir. 

Comments Regarding Vegetation 

23. One commenter stated that there 

has been no documentation of any 

adverse effects to shoreline vegetation 

from PWC use. 

NPS Response: The NPS agrees. There 

are no sensitive shoreline species and 

vegetation along the Blue Mesa 

Reservoir shoreline is generally lacking. 

The shoreline buffer established near 

Stevens Creek campground and in the 

arms of the lake will provide some 

additional protection from erosion 

caused from wave action created by 

PWC. Shoreline vegetation is more 

likely to be impacted from wave action 

when the reservoir is at full pool. 

Comments Regarding Visitor Safety 

24. One commenter stated that the 

conclusion that PWC use poses a health 

and safety risk ‘‘primarily to the 

operators’’ themselves is mistaken and 

the analysis does not adequately assess 

the safety threat posed to park visitors 

by PWC use. 

NPS Response: Incidents involving 

watercraft of all types, including PWC, 

are reported to and logged by NPS staff. 

A very small proportion of incidents in 

the recreation area are estimated to go 

unreported. In the ‘‘Visitor Conflicts and 

Visitor Safety’’ section of the ‘‘Affected 

Environment’’ chapter of the EA, it is 

reported by the National Transportation 

Safety Board that in 1996 personal 

watercraft represented 7.5% of stateregistered recreational boats but 

accounted for 36% of recreational 

boating accidents. In the same year, 

PWC operators accounted for more than 

41% of people injured in boating 

accidents. PWC operators accounted for 

approximately 85% of the persons 

injured in accidents studied in 1997. 

25. One commenter stated that the 

accident data used in the analysis was 

outdated and incorrect because PWC 

accidents are reported more often than 

other boating accidents. 

NPS Response: The mediating factors 

described in the comment are 

recognized. However, these factors are 

unlikely to fully explain the large 

difference in percentages (PWC are only 

7.5% of registered vessels, yet they are 

involved in 36% of reported accidents). 

In other words, PWC are 5 times more 

likely to have a reportable accident than 

are other boats. Despite these national 

boating accident statistics, impacts of 

PWC use and visitor conflicts are judged 

to be negligible relative to swimmers 

and minor impact relative to other 

motorboats at the national recreation 

area. 

26. Several commenters stated that 

the NPS analysis downplayed the threat 

PWC pose to the visiting public, 

specifically regarding PWC fire hazards. 

NPS Response: According to the 

National Marine Manufacturers 

Association (NMMA), PWC 

manufacturers have sold roughly 1.2 

million watercraft during the last ten 

years. Out of 1.2 million PWC sold, the 

U.S. Coast Guard had only 90 reports of 

fires/explosions in the years from 1995– 

1999. This is less than 1% of PWC boats 

having reports of problems associated 

with fires/explosions. As far as the 

recall campaigns conducted by 

Kawasaki and Bombardier, the problems 

that were associated with fuel tanks 

were fixed. Kawasaki conducted a recall 

for potentially defective fuel filler necks 

and fuel tank outlet gaskets on 23,579 

models from the years 1989 and 1990. 

The fuel tank problems were eliminated 

in Kawasaki’s newer models, and the 

1989 and 1990 models are most likely 

not in use anymore, since life 

expectancy of a PWC is only five to 

seven years, according to the PWC 

Industry Association (PWIA). 

Bombardier also did a recall for its 1993, 

1994, and 1995 models to reassess 

possible fuel tank design flaws. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55117 

However, the number of fuel tanks that 

had to be recalled was a very small 

percent of the 1993, 1994, and 1995 

fleets, because fuel tank sales only 

amounted to 2.16% of the total fleet 

during this period (Bombardier Inc.). 

The replacement fuel tanks differed 

from those installed in the watercraft 

subject to the recall in that the 

replacement tanks had revised filler 

neck radius, and the installation 

procedure now also requires revised 

torque specifications and the fuel 

system must successfully complete a 

pressure leak test. Bombardier found 

that the major factor contributing to 

PWC fires/explosions was over-torquing 

of the gear clamp. Bombardier was 

legally required by the U.S. Coast Guard 

to fix 9.72% of the recalled models. Out 

of 125,349 recalls, the company repaired 

48,370 units, which was approximately 

38% of the total recall, far exceeding 

their legal obligation to repair units with 

potential problems. 

Further, fuel tank and engine 

problems that could be associated with 

PWC fires have been reduced 

significantly since the NMMA set 

requirements for meeting manufacturing 

regulations established by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Many companies even choose to 

participate in the more stringent 

Certification Program administered by 

the NMMA. The NMMA verifies 

annually, or whenever a new product is 

put on the market, boat model lines to 

determine that they satisfy not only the 

U.S. Coast Guard regulations but also 

the more rigorous standards based on 

those established by the American Boat 

and Yacht Council. 

27. One commenter stated that 

demographic and usage information 

demonstrates that today’s PWC owner 

typically uses PWC for family-oriented 

outings, and that they are not reckless 

‘‘stunt’’ operators. 

NPS Response: NPS agrees that some 

PWC operators are more mature and are 

not reckless with their machines, and 

that many trips are family-oriented. 

However, PWC use does vary, and many 

operators still use the machines for 

‘‘thrill,’’ including stunts, wake 

jumping, and other more risky exercises. 

Some users can still create disturbances 

or safety concerns, especially if children 

are operating the vessel. As part of the 

implementation of the final rule, NPS 

will provide additional enforcement and 

education to minimize the possibility of 

any serious injuries. 

28. One commenter stated that even 

though the industry has attempted to 

promote three-person PWC as family 

machines, they are advertised and 

marketed as thrillcraft that tout the 

machine’s speed and power in 

advertisements. 

NPS Response: NPS agrees. However, 

some PWC operators are better educated 

and are not reckless with their 

machines, and many trips are familyoriented. PWC use does vary, and many 

operators still use the machines for 

‘‘thrill,’’ including stunts, wake 

jumping, and other more risky exercises. 

29. One commenter stated that several 

agencies, including the U.S. Coast 

Guard and the National Association of 

State Boating Law Administrators, 

recommend uniform application of flat 

wake zones to all motorized vessels. 

NPS Response: The flat wake 

restrictions apply to all vessels, not just 

PWC. All vessels are required to observe 

the flat wake regulatory buoys as 

required by 36 CFR 3.6(c). 

30. Several commenters were 

concerned about the NPS’ reliance on 

PWC ‘‘self-policing’’ regarding speed 

and flat wake zones, and that both 

alternative A and B will require 

additional staff to monitor and enforce 

the restrictions. 

NPS Response: The EA does state that 

generally there is at least one law 

enforcement ranger on the reservoir 

daily during daylight hours. There are 

also employees from other divisions 

who make boating contacts and/or 

report violations they observe while 

performing their tasks on the reservoir. 

Park staff noted that visitors frequently 

report violators of boating regulations, 

especially in the marinas. 

Furthermore, enforcement would also 

be required under the no-action 

alternative. The park is fully aware that 

this new regulation will require shortterm changes and reallocation of assets 

and resources, with an increase in 

enforcement. However, this effort will 

generally occur at popular boating use 

areas that are already the focus of 

enforcement activity. Enforcement of 

the November 6, 2002, prohibition of 

PWC required an increased focus on 

education and PWC enforcement during 

routine patrols at a limited number of 

popular use areas. This education and 

enforcement effort became successful in 

about two boating seasons. Additional 

educational efforts and a presence on 

the water by park rangers are proven 

methods of protecting resources for the 

future enjoyment of all visitors, with the 

end result of enhancing the visitor 

experience. 

Comments Regarding Cultural 

Resources 

31. One commenter stated that the 

analysis refers to a potential concern 

that the ability of PWC operators to 

access remote areas of the park unit 

might make certain cultural, 

archeological and ethnographic sites 

vulnerable to looting or vandalism. 

NPS Response: The EA was focused 

on the analysis of impacts from PWC 

use. The use of a PWC can make it 

easier to reach some remote upstream 

areas, compared to hiking to these areas 

and we agree that the type of impacts to 

cultural resources from any users of 

remote areas of the park would be 

similar if they can reach these areas. 

However, there is no indication of any 

instances where these problems have 

occurred from PWC users. Nor is there 

any reason to believe that PWC users are 

any more likely to pose these concerns 

than canoeists, kayakers, hikers, or 

others who might access these same 

areas. 

Comments Regarding Socioeconomics 

32. Several commenters stated that 

the proposed rule fails to mention the 

economic impacts on the PWC-related 

businesses in the area. One of the 

comments also mentions a recently 

published economic study that 

discusses the economic impact of 

prohibiting PWC at national parks 

nationwide. 

NPS Response: NPS reviewed the 

Trade Partnership study quoted in the 

comment, which concludes that PWC 

sales grew steadily through 1995, and 

have declined dramatically since then. 

The study blames this decline in sales 

on the PWC prohibition at National 

Parks. While the PWC prohibition at 

some National Park units may have 

contributed slightly to decline in PWC 

sales, NPS disagrees with the study’s 

conclusion that the prohibition is the 

primary reason for the decline in sales. 

Initially PWC use occurred in only 32 of 

the 87 park units that allow motorized 

boating. These 32 park units comprise a 

very small percentage of the total 

waterways in the United States that can 

accommodate PWC. A decline in PWC 

sales can be attributed to many other 

reasons, including economic reasons, 

perceptions about the machines, and 

limitations by other public entities. In 

fact, at least 34 states have either 

implemented or considered regulating 

PWC use and operation, and various 

Federal agencies have managed PWC 

use differently than other classes of 

motorized watercraft. 

The economic analysis report quoted 

in the comment (Economic Analysis of 

Management Alternatives for Personal 

Watercraft in Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, MACTEC Engineering 

2003) concludes that the rule is not 

expected to reduce any of the local 

area’s PWC-related businesses’ profit 

margins or reduce the competitiveness 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55118 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

of PWC rental and retail businesses. The 

report also concludes that increases in 

revenue are projected under the rule, 

relative to the no-action alternative, for 

firms selling and renting PWC to 

Curecanti visitors. 

The purpose of the economic analysis 

was not to look at national economic 

trends of the service-wide rule, but to 

consider local and regional economic 

impacts of the Curecanti proposed rule. 

Changes to the Final Rule 

The final rule is the same as proposed 

in the NPRM, except that language has 

been added to paragraph (d)(1) of § 7.51 

to address the buoyed barricaded 

sections in the vicinity of the Blue Mesa 

Dam, where boats are not allowed. This 

change was made in response to 

comments, as discussed in section 3 of 

the Summary of Comments, above. 

Compliance With Other Laws 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule and has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

It will not adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

The National Park Service has 

completed the report ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Management Alternatives 

for Personal Watercraft in Curecanti 

National Recreation Area’’ (MACTEC 

Engineering, July 2003). This document 

may be viewed on the park’s Web site 

at: http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/ 

pwc_use.htm. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. Actions taken under 

this rule will not interfere with other 

agencies or local government plans, 

policies or controls. This rule is an 

agency specific rule. 

(3) This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. This 

rule will have no effects on 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights or obligations of 

their recipients. No grants or other 

forms of monetary supplements are 

involved. 

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. This rule is one of the 

special regulations being issued for 

managing PWC use in National Park 

Units. The National Park Service 

published general regulations (36 CFR 

3.24) in March 2000, requiring 

individual park areas to adopt special 

regulations to authorize PWC use. The 

implementation of the requirement of 

the general regulation continues to 

generate interest and discussion from 

the public concerning the overall effect 

of authorizing PWC use and National 

Park Service policy and park 

management. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is 

based on a report entitled ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Management Alternatives 

for Personal Watercraft in Curecanti 

National Recreation Area’’ (MACTEC 

Engineering, July 2003). This document 

may be viewed on the park’s Web site 

at: http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/ 

pwc_use.htm. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This final rule: 

a. Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

c. Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

rule is an agency specific rule and does 

not impose any other requirements on 

other agencies, governments, or the 

private sector. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. A taking 

implication assessment is not required. 

No taking of personal property will 

occur as a result of this rule. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

This final rule only affects use of NPS 

administered lands and waters. It has no 

outside effects on other areas by 

allowing PWC use in specific areas of 

the park. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This regulation does not require an 

information collection from 10 or more 

parties and a submission under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

requried. An OMB Form 83–I is not 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

As a companion document to the 

NPRM, NPS issued the Personal 

Watercraft Use Environmental 

Assessment for Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. The Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was open for public 

review and comment from June 11, 2003 

until July 13, 2003. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) was 

approved on June 16, 2006. These 

documents are available at http:// 

www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/pwc_use.htm, 

or copies can be obtained directly from 

the park. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government to Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 

DM 2, we have evaluated potential 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

tribes and have determined that there 

are no potential effects. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This rule allows use of PWC in 

Curecanti National Recreation Area 

under specified conditions. Because 

current regulations do not allow use of 

PWC at all, this rule relieves a 

restriction on the public. For this 

reason, and because NPS wishes to 

allow the public to take advantage of the 

new rules as soon as possible, this final 

rule is effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register, as allowed by the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55119 

Administrative Procedure Act at 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(1). 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 13792) on 

March 17, 2006, with a 60-day period 

for notice and comment consistent with 

the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 

National Parks, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

National Park Service amends 36 CFR 

part 7 as follows: 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority for part 7 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 

462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 

8–137(1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). 

■ 2. Add new paragraph (d) to § 7.51 to 

read as follows: 

§ 7.51 Curecanti Recreation Area. 

* * * * * 

(d) Personal Watercraft (PWC). PWC 

may operate within Curecanti National 

Recreation Area in the following 

designated areas and under the 

following conditions: 

(1) PWC may operate and land on 

Blue Mesa Reservoir between Beaver 

Creek and Blue Mesa dam, except that 

PWC may not operate in the buoyed 

barricaded section in the vicinity of the 

dam. 

(2) PWC must operate at ‘‘flat wake’’

speeds within Blue Mesa Reservoir in 

the following areas upstream of 

designated buoys: 

(i) Soap Creek arm at approximate 

longitude 107°8′9′′ N latitude 38°30′16′′ 

W. 

(ii) West Elk arm at approximate 

longitude 107°16′45′′ N latitude 

38°29′43′′ W. 

(iii) Cebolla arm at approximate 

longitude 107°12′16′′ N latitude 

38°27′37′′ W. 

(iv) Lake Fork arm at approximate 

longitude 107°18′19′′ N latitude 38°27′2′′ 

W. 

(3) PWC must operate at ‘‘flat wake’’

speeds in the following areas: 

(i) Within 100’ of shoreline inside Dry 

Creek cove. 

(ii) Within 500’ of shoreline along old 

highway 50 and Bay of Chickens. 

(iii) Within the buoyed area around 

Elk Creek and Lake Fork marinas. 

(iv) Within the buoyed area at Iola, 

Stevens Creek, and Ponderosa boat 

launch. 

(v) From Lake city bridge east to 

Beaver Creek. 

(vi) Within 100′ of shoreline adjacent 

to Stevens Creek campground. 

(4) PWC may only be launched from 

designated boat launch sites. 

(5) The Superintendent may 

temporarily limit, restrict or terminate 

access to the areas designated for PWC 

use after taking into consideration 

public health and safety, natural and 

cultural resource protection, and other 

management activities and objectives. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–7846 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 60 

[EPA–OAR–2004–0510; FRL–8221–4] 

RIN 2060–AF83 

Methods for Measurement of Visible 

Emissions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes Methods 

203A, 203B, and 203C for determining 

visible emissions using data reduction 

procedures that are more appropriate for 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) rules 

than Method 9, the method currently 

used. This action was requested by the 

States and is needed for the special data 

reduction requirements in their rules. 

The intended effect is to provide States 

with an expanded array of data 

reduction procedures for determining 

compliance with their SIP opacity 

regulations. 

In addition, this action amends 

various testing provisions in the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

to correct inadvertent errors and amend 

a testing provision. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2004–0510. All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID 

No. OAR–2004–0510, EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Segall, Measurement Technology 

Group (E143–02), Air Quality 

Assessment Division, EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone (919) 541–0893; fax number 

(919) 541–0516; electronic mail address: 

segall.robin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by the final rule include the 

following: 

TABLE 1.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION

Examples of regulated entities SIC codes NAICS codes 

Fossil Fuel Steam Generators ................................................................................................................................. 4931 221112 

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units ................................................................................. 4961 22133 

Electric Generating .................................................................................................................................................. 4911 221119 

Portland Cement Plants ........................................................................................................................................... 3241 327310 

Petroleum Refineries ............................................................................................................................................... 2911 324110 

Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 2951 324121 

Kraft Pulp Mills ......................................................................................................................................................... 2611 3221 

Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................................. 4953 562213 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1